we helped train the Iraqis and back in the late 80's, we looked the other way when
American companies sold them equipment for their nuclear and biochemical developments
Do you have links to documentation about this. Not that even this would amount to playing God, but these are serious charges.
Its possible (and not unusual if true) that we may have sent some trainers over to teach some Iraqi's to use the weapons we sold them but I have seen nothing to indicate any wide spread training of the Iraqi army by the US. We didn't sell them many weapons or conduct any large scale training of Iraq's army. I know that we have sold Iraq oil drilling equipment and other things and a few so called "dual use" items for use in medicine factories and the like but what chemical weapon making equipment did we sell?
_____________________
"I do not understand how Clinton Fernandes in his posting "Who armed Saddam"
can make the transition from 'facts' to policy preference or values
(condemnation in advance of an attack against Saddam). My comments here
however are not about this specific 'passage' but about the facts
themselves. I sent the posting to a friend of mine in Washington who knows a
things or two about US arms sales. He authorized me to post his comments but
wishes to remain anonymous.
Osvaldo Croci
Fernandes writes, "4. An American company, Pfaulder Corporation of
Rochester, New York, supplied the Iraqis with a blueprint in 1975, enabling
them to construct their first chemical warfare plant. The plant was
purchased in sections from Italy, West Germany and East Germany and
assembled in Iraq. It was located at Akhashat in north-western Iraq, and
the cost was around $50 million for the plant and $30 million for the safety
equipment."
Fact: The plant was actually a pharmaceutical plant that, because of the
nature of the business, dual use items would be required. It was a
commercial sale and not financed by the USG. So, here we have a situation
where the US (and others) are condemned for selling dual use technologies
back then, but I suggest Fernandes is outraged that the US refuses to sell
dual use chemicals to Iraq today.
Fernandes writes: "5. British, French and German multinationals turned the
request down on moral grounds or because the Iraqi delivery schedule
couldn't be met - not because their governments objected.
Fact: "Moral grounds" is subjective and no proof is offered. My experience
in these things indicate the other countries lost out on the sale and didn't
want to be embarrassed. Besides, delayed delivery schedules affect return
on investment. Delayed returns would mean less profitability-and who wants
that---unless you can afford such a delay (like US companies).
Fernandes writes: "6. The United States took other steps to ensure that
Saddam's rule was strengthened. Mobile phone systems were mainly in the
military domain at the time, but the United States government approved the
1975 sale by the Karkar Corporation of San Francisco of a complete mobile
telephone system. The system was to be used by the Ba'ath Party loyalists to
protect the regime against any attempts to overthrow it."
Fact: Assessing nefarious intent because an unclassified, un-encrypted, COT
(commercial-off-the-shelf) mobile phone network was approved for export and
sale and that hardware COULD be used by a military is nonsense. Indeed, we
wish his military would use more of those systems, as it would make
collecting intelligence that much easier.
Fernandes writes: "7. The United States also supplied Saddam with satellite
pictures of Iranian positions during the Iran-Iraq war."
Fact: Some. Only selected, degraded info was shared.
Fernandes writes: "13. Whenever the declared policies of the Western
countries stood in the way of an arms deal, Western governments used two
methods to get around their own rules and thereby manage public opinion. a.
The first method was the well-established use of the 'front'. Thus, Western
governments supplied Saddam through the pro-West countries of Jordan and
Egypt, which acted as a front for Iraq. This was done to overcome
Congressional, parliamentary and press hurdles, even when it was obvious to
military experts that Jordan and Egypt had no use for the weapons in
question. Saddam also set up his own weapons buying offices in the West,
with the knowledge of the host governments. For example, Matrix Churchill
was a weapons purchasing company set up in Britain.
Fact: Not even close to true. The LOA (Letter of Offer and Acceptance) is
quite clear and is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act, the Foreign
Assistance Act (FAA) and DoD 5105.38-M, Security Assistance Management
Manual. Basically, any third-party transfers "must provide appropriate
security and retransfer assurances before the Department of State" and the
DOS will make the determination/recommendation regarding the sale/transfer.
That said, Congress must be notified of any change to the terms and
conditions of the LOA that result in a third-party transfer (FAA, 505(a);
AECA, Section 3(a)).
How to do a third-party transfer? Here goes: it has to be requested by the
country that owns the stuff. The DOS then reviews the request, sends to
commerce, the White House and DoD, as well as intel agencies. The country
wanting to sell must certify that no security regulations/restrictions will
be violated-i.e., that the country receiving the stuff is authorized by
congress to receive the stuff to begin with. This is mandated by law and
one can't avoid congressional oversight. The request for transfer must
include a detailed description of the items to be re-sold, funding method of
the original sale (FMF or national funds), original cost, sale cost,
confirmation that the new recipient will agree to all the terms and
conditions of the original LOA and a detailed description of the use the new
owner will make of the item. Once this is done, the DOS will coordinate
with the in-country DOS/DoD team ("country team") to validate the
information. Once this is done Congress is officially notified.
And, oh by the way, and monies made by the sale will be placed in a
US-managed trust fund.
In addition, what weapons? The weapons sold to Egypt were well known and of
US manufacture, and the Iraqi military fielded no such arms. There were
congressional enquiries about this rumor and the allegation the US armed
Iraq is silliness and nonsense.
Fernandes goes on: "b. The second method was to extend Saddam massive
credits which he could then use for military purposes. Thus, the Banco di
Lavoro in the United States gave Saddam US$4 billion worth of credits,
ostensibly to buy food, but which was diverted to buy weapons with the
knowledge of everyone involved. . ."
Fact: Not even close to reality. Hmmm. . .imagine, Saddam diverting funds
for another use. . .sounds like justification to keep a strong lid on the
sanctions.
Fernandes writes: "15. The US Department of Commerce licensed the export
of biological materials - including a range of pathogenic agents - as well
as plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities and
chemical-warhead filling equipment - to Iraq until December 1989, 20 months
after the Halabja atrocity."
Fact: Nope. Bio materials licensed to Iraq were cleared through the Dept
of Commerce, approved by the Dept of State, and were ultimately approved by
the Congress-for use in the pharmaceutical plant. Dual use. This fact
makes the case for sanctions on ALL dual use items."
csf.colorado.edu |
